Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds substantive context beyond them: guaranteed data freshness vs. the cached sibling, a concrete ~2-second latency penalty, and a per-call credit cost. It also notes the response shape matches `info`, which reduces the need to inspect output.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the relationship to the sibling and then the decision criteria. The pointer to another endpoint's docs for fields is a minor indirection, but given an output schema exists this is efficient rather than wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers freshness semantics, latency, and cost. The only gap is behavior on invalid or unmatched addresses, which is not addressed anywhere.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema as a full US property address to re-fetch fresh. The description adds no syntax, formatting, or validation detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies this as the freshness-guaranteed variant that returns the same record shape as `info`, and names the distinguishing behavior (always freshest available record). It is clear about what it does relative to the sibling, though it never states outright that it fetches a property record by address and refers to the sibling as `info` rather than the actual tool name `get_property_info`.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit when-to-use: pricing decisions, just-listed alerts, post-sale confirmation. It also states the tradeoff condition (freshness over the ~2-second latency cost) and implicitly routes the agent to `info` for fast lookups. Cost (1 credit) is disclosed so the agent can weigh alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.